Nice_Boat Tank Damage System

[Rydygier 1302]

For now discovered, that at least with mines setHits doesn't work in TDS, when script is called from within EH (not scheduled), version b, where is spawned from EH, works fine. Not sure, but his may be something about that:

HandleDamage can trigger "twice" per damage event. Once for direct damage, once for indirect damage (explosive damage).

This can happen even in the same frame, but is unlikely.

Each HandleDamage event show the current damage from the damage source. NOT cumulative or the current "damage level" (health) of the target unit.

So a second HandleDamage event can nullify/overwrite the damage of the first event, IF they are in the same frame (or time slice the engine uses the update the damage status of an unit).

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_2:_Event_Handlers#HandleDamage

So perhaps just only setHits will be spawned? Ugly, but may prove to be neccessary.

1. More randomness in penetration. As is A 2A46M will always penetrate an M1s front armour.

Yep. Most values are same, as in ACE. I was quite suprised, as T-90 has there better armor than M1 and gun, that with SABOT will penetrate M1 front armor often (kinetic M1 front armor RHA value varies between 360 and 1260 (av. 990), and 2A46M SABOT penetration for 1000 meters varies between 785 and 835 (av. 815) - in general the more value, the bigger randomness). Still - until I'll have another reliable data - this will stay, as is, because I do not want to guess blindly and change values every time I'll have suspition, that something is not right. Such approach leads nowhere. For now - experimetal version after code revision, with extended randomness for satchels (mines should be again deadly for tracks/wheels).

Nice_Boat's TDS 2.04a

PS. This was always - as there is still not getHit command, TDS, as for broken tracks/gun/turret/wheels is not comaptibile with any repair. I guess, that eg currently "repaired" tracks will be again broken after next hit. Only known to me alternative is, that after first repair given part will be unbreakable, so I prefer first option...

Edited December 11, 2012 by Rydygier

[archbishop lazarus 24]

and 2A46M SABOT penetration for 1000 meters varies between 785 and 835 (av. 815)

Is that in mm? Then it is overly optimistic, the most advanced 3BM42M projectile penetrates avg 600-650mm @ 2km. Certified penetration is unknown, but lower, not more than 600mm.

[Rydygier 1302]

Yeah, mm of RHA, 1000 meters however. For me also this looks a bit too good, but, like I said, decided to rely on source, that seems to be reliable (ACE team, as far, as I know, did good research). Any other at least equally reliable sources of such data are appreciated and my have impact on addon's values. Truth is, that in many cases internet provides contradictory info. Hard to know, which source is best. So, if certified data is uknown, how do we know, that is lower, and not bigger than 600mm on 2000?

[kireta21 13]

Modern APFSDS rounds lose little of their power per km (heavier lose less obviously). I remember DM-53 lose 3% of its velocity per km, old BM-42 6%, even older BM-9 8%, so decrease in penetration is minimal for modern rounds, probably well within error margin, and even for older rounds isn't that important.

[Damian90 696]

Yeah, mm of RHA, 1000 meters however. For me also this looks a bit too good, but, like I said, decided to rely on source, that seems to be reliable (ACE team, as far, as I know, did good research).

If I am correct, ACE use two values for penetration, let me check this in configs.

Yup, there are two values in the config, standard value "hit" and "ace_hit" value, so it's look like this:

simulation = "shotShell";

ace_hit = 950;

hit = 1000;

indirectHit = 10;

indirectHitRange = 0.100000;

typicalSpeed = 1545;

airFriction = -0.000038;

explosive = 0.050000;

deflecting = 0;

tracerScale = 4;

tracerEndTime = 4;

model = "\ca\Weapons\Data\bullettracer\tracer_red";

explosionEffects = "ExploAmmoExplosion";

timeToLive = 42;

irLock = 1;

This is for M829A3.

The Sh_125_SABOT which seems to be 3BM42 have such values.

ace_hit = 540;

hit = 702;

And 3BM42M have such:

ace_hit = 650;

hit = 910;

typicalSpeed = 1750;

airFriction = -0.000040;

deflecting = 0;

So the "ace_hit" is the penetration value as in real life, while "hit" value seems to be there for some other reason.

So, if certified data is uknown, how do we know, that is lower, and not bigger than 600mm on 2000?

Certyfied data is always lower, I will ask my friend, he have some documents about this.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Damian90

[Rydygier 1302]

OK then, it is quite possible, that I'm just not read configs properly, and used eg hit instead of ACE_hit. Not remember for sure though, this was a year ago, but for sure then I knew about any config even less, than now. That's even better, I'll gladly lower this value in such case, as had similar feelings about it (only feelings, I'm not specialist at all). Hmm. So, I suppose I need to read all configs again. Now, where I hid them?

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Check the page below, and look for APFSDS rounds. It is the best and most reliable source available. And if you need help with armor values, I can help.

http://www.russianarmor.info/

[kireta21 13]

Quite possible, I remember ACE_hit for BM42M is exactly 650.

You might be intrested in this. Some kind soul gathered data from tank-related forums to create database for wargaming.

Sources: Mainly from posts on Tanknet the premier source of tank discussion online. Also from Stephen Zaloga's various works on Russian MBTs, GSPO forum, BTVT, Vasiliy Fofanov's Russian MBT site, Hilmes' books, Hunnicutt Patton and Abrams, Janes IDR and the NII Stali website.

Maybe using these values plus random 50% to simulate armor's weak spots would do the trick. For example BM42M would be 650 + (random 0 to 325) = 650 to 975 (5% less per km), with M1A1HC frontal armor 880 turret and 650 hull would give like 33% chance to penetrate turret and almost certain hull penetration. While this could be exploited in ACE with their awesome FCSs, this shouldn't be a problem with vanilla aiming, since it's damn hard to precisely hit moving target at 1km+, while lock-on missiles and AI gunners that never miss will aim at turret anyway.

But that's just me thinking

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Yes, I also recommend that site. Good source. However, a few things need to be corrected, like T-55 armor values. I researched it quite extensively. Glacis should be 205-210 instead of 190 due to good quality steel, while turret should be ~280-300 instead of the usual 203mm. Reason, is the shape of the turret. If you look at the tank from the front, effective protection is around 200mm in the vicinity of the gun, but it quickly rises to 250, and around the sides it reaches 400mm. Average is 280-300. It is confirmed by israeli reports from various wars. At longer ranges, early 105mm APDS (up to M728) often failed to penetrate the turret front.

It is the same with M-60A1/A3 tanks, (OK, I know we dont have them in the game) where the usual 254mm is again false thanks to the excellent turret shape. Reality is 330-620mm.

[Rydygier 1302]

Thanks, guys. I'll study this. TDS from the beginning, I think, didn't distinguished between hull and turret hit. RHA of both armor is currently averaged, and chances for hit in weak spot, or, on the contrary, stronger, is simulated statistically, via armor values randomisation with some formula (same for simulating different thickness to penetrate beacuse of impact angle). To determine, which side was hit, matters only hull direction (in 3D), not turret. Separatelly randomized is also penetrating power of the projectile with simply manner: minimum value + some random value.

There is also not touched by me till now formula for calculating penetrating power of SABOT ammo with the distance. Data, that you provided about very low such loss means, that probably I'll need to change that formula, as with it penetrating power loss is bigger. Currently it looks like here:

_penetration = _penetration + ((((1000 - (_attacker distance _target))/100) * 0.02) * _penetration);

Means, that eg if penetration at 1000 meters is 500, then at 2000 will be 400 (20% loss), and for 500 meters - 550 mm RHA (10% gain).

Looks, like 0.02 multiplier should be about four times smaller, so we get 5% loss between 1000 and 2000 meters. Is that correct?

[mjolnir66 48]

Another little problem. This makes the crew members of a turned out tank invincible. Just a little thing really, but quite annoying.

[Damian90 696]

You might be intrested in this. Some kind soul gathered data from tank-related forums to create database for wargaming.

This site is not reliable, many vehicles are overestimated, some types of ammunition also. But this is only me, some random guy who actually works hard to be closer to the whole business.:rolleyes:

However, a few things need to be corrected, like T-55 armor values. I researched it quite extensively. Glacis should be 205-210 instead of 190 due to good quality steel, while turret should be ~280-300 instead of the usual 203mm. Reason, is the shape of the turret. If you look at the tank from the front, effective protection is around 200mm in the vicinity of the gun, but it quickly rises to 250, and around the sides it reaches 400mm. Average is 280-300. It is confirmed by israeli reports from various wars.

It is immposible to properly simulate variable armor thickness of cast structures in games with such simple armor simulation as ArmA2. The only really good simulation of it I can think of is SB Pro PE. So it is better to stick with avarage or fixed and accepted armor values.

For example BM42M would be 650 + (random 0 to 325) = 650 to 975 (5% less per km), with M1A1HC frontal armor 880 turret and 650 hull would give like 33% chance to penetrate turret and almost certain hull penetration.

In reality protection is higher, also for front hull (both glacis and "beak", however as "beak" is easier to simulate in ArmA2, the glacis is a bit more tricky, as it's involves not only protection of probably HHS plate, 50mm thick at 80 degrees inclination, but also additional protection from fuel tanks, yes fuel tanks, the research from "Burlington" program, says that fuel tanks are excellent addition for armor, they can add from ~100mm up to approx ~200mm of protection messured in RHAe).

But then again, this are things more known to tank nuts like me, more interested in the small details and such things. ;)

So as such sites might be helpfull, there is also a lot of bullcrap there, so be carefull with estimations.

[Rydygier 1302]

Crew is not easy matter. Normally crew gets damage even without penetration, so in earlier versions most often scenario was not scratched tank full of dead people after a few hits. So I was forced to make crew immune on normal damage, and instead damage for them is calculated via same Event Handler, that controls tank damage. And this may be side effect of such solution. Currently I don't know, how to via script distinguish crew member, that is turned out, from hidden inside. Have some small theory and will test that.

EDIT:

LOS checks failed, but suceed with animationState method. Nearly always animationstate of turned out crew member ends with "out". The only found for now exception is M1A2's loader position, that cannot turn in (this is nasty, I prefer just to remove loaders from my M1A2). In that case animationstate indicates humvee gunner state. So this way solution is possible, I think.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Rydygier

[archbishop lazarus 24]

It is immposible to properly simulate variable armor thickness of cast structures in games with such simple armor simulation as ArmA2. The only really good simulation of it I can think of is SB Pro PE. So it is better to stick with avarage or fixed and accepted armor values.

I also suggested using average (~300mm) values. Look at the turret from the front. On the right side of the gun, 3/4 to 4/5 of the turret is over 300mm LOS, on the left side, 2/3. (its because the gun is offset to the right) Only 1/10 of the frontal aspect is under 250mm. Not bad for a turret that is originally designed to defeat only the 8.8cm L/71.

additional protection from fuel tanks, yes fuel tanks, the research from "Burlington" program, says that fuel tanks are excellent addition for armor, they can add from ~100mm up to approx ~200mm of protection messured in RHAe).

Hehehe... Its the same with the rear doors of BMP1/2. A common western misbelief is that storing fuel in their rear doors is terribly dangerous for the troops. In reality, fuel made the rear doors immune to .50cal HMGs.

[kireta21 13]

@Damian90

Of course, exact numbers will vary from source to source for many reasons, primary different standards and conditions or lack of more reliable sources.

Database was made for wargamers (thus the name) to provide them with some base values for more realistic ballance.

Everything after quote is just idea how could it be used gameplay-wise, not real-life results. Obviously ArmA can't do this level of realism, even ACE, despite great improvement, isn't close to SB Pro.

[Damian90 696]

I also suggested using average (~300mm) values. Look at the turret from the front. On the right side of the gun, 3/4 to 4/5 of the turret is over 300mm LOS, on the left side, 2/3. (its because the gun is offset to the right) Only 1/10 of the frontal aspect is under 250mm. Not bad for a turret that is originally designed to defeat only the 8.8cm L/71.

Yeah, but You need to be carefull with overarmoring.

Hehehe... Its the same with the rear doors of BMP1/2. A common western misbelief is that storing fuel in their rear doors is terribly dangerous for the troops. In reality, fuel made the rear doors immune to .50cal HMGs.

It is partially truth, however believe me, fuel tanks in M1 series are designed to add protection, not put there because there was space for them. Did you know that even their internal design is classified, even their external design is classified, I only seen one very weak quality photo of rear right sponson fuel tank taken out from damaged tank, but no details were visible due to real poor quality. I read some interesting documents, although only in Polish unfortunetaly, about work of Dr. Harvey who designed "Burlington" armor, there was also a lot informations about fuel tanks he designed, their design is far more complex than these rear doors in BMP-1 and BMP-2. Although I agree that these rear doors might add some protection.

Of course, exact numbers will vary from source to source for many reasons, primary different standards and conditions or lack of more reliable sources.

Database was made for wargamers (thus the name) to provide them with some base values for more realistic ballance.

This is why own research is also important. For example that site says that front hull "beak" armor of the M1 series is ~800-900mm RHAe vs CE ammunition. I know that this part of tank was at least one time, hit by RPG-29 that is reported to have penetration capability of ~750mm RHA after ERA, and did not perforated "beak" armor even if it is not protected by ERA, which means that CE protection of "beak" is more than RPG-29 can penetrate RHA without ERA protection.

Not to mention that actually RHAe values are very... well not precise when it comes to composite armor, because composite armor projectile defeating mechanism is closer to... ERA than passive armors.

I also have unofficial information about F-F incident where M1A1HA was hit in to front turret armor by AGM-114 Hellfire (which AFAIK have penetration levels estimated as approx ~1,200mm RHA or more), and guess what, not only it did not perforated armor, but we know that armor was perforated approx 50% to 70% of it's LOS thickness. Although as I said, it is not official, so I can't use as a very hard proof.

But the protection levels of modern tanks, are most probably higher than these provided in the internet.

Everything after quote is just idea how could it be used gameplay-wise, not real-life results. Obviously ArmA can't do this level of realism, even ACE, despite great improvement, isn't close to SB Pro.

Believe me, even SB pro is not perfect, I know, developers talk about this a lot.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

It is partially truth, however believe me, fuel tanks in M1 series are designed to add protection, not put there because there was space for them.

Correct me if Im wrong, but I heard that they are primarily vs. HEAT.

This is why own research is also important. For example that site says that front hull "beak" armor of the M1 series is ~800-900mm RHAe vs CE ammunition. I know that this part of tank was at least one time, hit by RPG-29 that is reported to have penetration capability of ~750mm RHA after ERA, and did not perforated "beak" armor even if it is not protected by ERA, which means that CE protection of "beak" is more than RPG-29 can penetrate RHA without ERA protection.

Probably the gunner was inexperienced, and hit the armor at an angle. Challenger-2 hull front, protected by ERA was penetrated by this weapon in an another case.

also have unofficial information about F-F incident where M1A1HA was hit in to front turret armor by AGM-114 Hellfire (which AFAIK have penetration levels estimated as approx ~1,200mm RHA or more), and guess what, not only it did not perforated armor, but we know that armor was perforated approx 50% to 70% of it's LOS thickness. Although as I said, it is not official, so I can't use as a very hard proof.

As far as I know it really happened. But M1A1HA's front turret is 1080-1320 vs. CE, so the chance of surviving a Hellfire hit is quite high. It is why the effectiveness of russian GL ATGMs, like the Refleks or Invar are overestimated. HEAT warheads arent effective anymore against turret front armor of contemporary tanks. Its OK that you can fire the missiles far beyond the reach the 120mm guns, but so what? They are ineffective, especially against the M1A2, Chally-2 or Leo-2A5/6.

[Damian90 696]

Correct me if Im wrong, but I heard that they are primarily vs. HEAT.

Yes, but they can add a significant protection also again KE, M1 front fuel tanks are nearly 1,000mm long, if you would transfer this in to armor this is a lot of thickness (there is also a lot of physics here, like hydrodynamics, because modern ammunition when penetrating armor, interacts with armor exactly on the basis of hydrodynamics) + the lower front hull "beak" is a ~650-700mm thick composite armor module.

However for example the British light tank Contentious, that was never inducted in to service, also had behind front armor a fuel tank designed as addon armor, this fuel tank increased front hull protection to the level of some medium and heavy tanks, seriously.

Probably the gunner was inexperienced, and hit the armor at an angle. Challenger-2 hull front, protected by ERA was penetrated by this weapon in an another case.

No, not because that, it hit directly in the the "beak". As for Challenger 2, the "beak" in CR2 is simple, approx ~100mm thick homogeneus steel plate, nothing more, a weak spot inherited from Challenger 1. This is why it was protected by ERA and after this incident with RPG-29, ERA had been replaced with thick, bolt on addon Dorchester composite armor, to be honest, crew had incredible luck that shaped charge did not hit ammunition properlant charges racks, it could end with another Challenger 2 with flying turret. I know that British guys will kill me but, Challenger 2 is not that good armored. It's front turret armor have cast backplates. Soviet sources says that they calculated that cast armor plate is from 5% to 15% weaker than it's rolled analog. Which means that Dorchester armor used by Challenger 2 have very weak backplates, and sometimes, life or death depends on these backplates. Other tanks like M1 or Leo2 use rolled backplates. By the way, did You ever saw Challenger 1 turret without Burlington armor installed? It is nothing else than slightly redesigned, Chieftain cast turret! :D I have even a photo... somewhere in my archieves.

The only reasons why Challenger 2 had fewer losses was because British had less capable enemy, there was less CR2's in the theater, and after conventional war phase, these tanks were operated more rare than M1's by Americans, in more calm sector and in even fewer numbers.

As far as I know it really happened. But M1A1HA's front turret is 1080-1320 vs. CE, so the chance of surviving a Hellfire hit is quite high. It is why the effectiveness of russian GL ATGMs, like the Refleks or Invar are overestimated. HEAT warheads arent effective anymore against turret front armor of contemporary tanks. Its OK that you can fire the missiles far beyond the reach the 120mm guns, but so what? They are ineffective, especially against the M1A2, Chally-2 or Leo-2A5/6.

There is theory that GLATGM's were designed not to defeat tanks, but for several other reasons. First was to please Khrushchev (the whole history is very interesting, with the missile tanks program and such things), second such GLATGM might be usefull against low flying attack helicopters, and third that it might compensate problems with stabilization and FCS and provide long range, precise guided ammunition that can be used against enemy tank destroyers armed with ATGM's + it is still efficent against older tanks.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Hmmm, then those fuel tanks are quite well designed then!

it could end with another Challenger 2 with flying turret.

Another??? Challenger 2 ever suffered catastrophic ammo explosion? I didnt know that. Could you tell me the details, Im really interested!

By the way, did You ever saw Challenger 1 turret without Burlington armor installed? It is nothing else than slightly redesigned, Chieftain cast turret! I have even a photo... somewhere in my archieves.

Thats also interesting! Please, could you upload it?

There is theory that GLATGM's were designed not to defeat tanks, but for several other reasons. First was to please Khrushchev (the whole history is very interesting, with the missile tanks program and such things), second such GLATGM might be usefull against low flying attack helicopters, and third that it might compensate problems with stabilization and FCS and provide long range, precise guided ammunition that can be used against enemy tank destroyers armed with ATGM's + it is still efficent against older tanks.

Well, originally the design philosophy was what you described. But recently, russians advertising these missiles as "Abrams and Leopard killers", which give the T-90 huge advantage against western tanks, due to the long range. What a BS. They try to distract attention from the weak (at least compared to modern western ammo, but up to the end of cold war, 125mm was significantly more potent than NATO 120mm.) APFSDS for 125mm guns.

[Damian90 696]

Another??? Challenger 2 ever suffered catastrophic ammo explosion? I didnt know that. Could you tell me the details, Im really interested!

It was in 2003, a Friendly Fire incident, realy nasty. A Challenger 2 crew decided to stop and do some R&R in the field, two crew members got outside and two stay in tank, some distance away another Challenger 2 from other unit identified their tank as a bunker or APC, and fire a HESH in their direction, the round had such trajectory that it hit the commander cupola and hatch and exploded, making some fire inside and igniting ammunition propelant charges... this safe ammunition storage eh? But I think that image says more than a thousand words.

The only survivors where these two lucky guys that were outside, two crew members died. :(

Thats also interesting! Please, could you upload it?

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/8120/chltrrt.jpg (143 kB)

You can see that it is the same shape as Chieftain, although a bit more smooth. On the side you can see opening in the armor for TOGS optical channels.

Well, originally the design philosophy was what you described. But recently, russians advertising these missiles as "Abrams and Leopard killers", which give the T-90 huge advantage against western tanks, due to the long range. What a BS. They try to distract attention from the weak (at least compared to modern western ammo, but up to the end of cold war, 125mm was significantly more potent than NATO 120mm.) APFSDS for 125mm guns.

I know reasonable Russians, they are nice fellows, and damn well informed also, you can bet that they do not think that way, it is just a PR to please goverment and as a use to promote equipment.

[Rydygier 1302]

So checked values with ACE configs again. Seems, that too high penetration for T-90 sabot was the only mistake with configs reading. As for too weak T72 armor - I can only say, that ACE has same values for T72_Base class. If not acceptable - T72_RU (russian) can be distinguished with own values, but not sure, what exactly values should be used. Crew should be vulnerable now when turned out, but this was only slightly tested. Lack of working turning towards attacker is still not healed pain. This may need very deep AI change anyway, as after such turning vehicle will not stay on place/with such direction, but will return to its normal behavior. Here is new version for tests:

NBT_TDS 2.05a

And, as I can see, you, guys, are pretty knowledgeable, so here is also values table for penetration and armor if you would like to check. Anything wrong? Any corrections? I have some suspitions eg about Stryker MGS ammo, in ACE ammo has bigger values, but also seems to be of another kind instead of OA version...

Averaged (base) front armor. Other sides calculated via multiplication this value by such number, so result correspond with averaged ACE values (including ERA):

"T55_TK_EP1", "T55_TK_GUE_EP1" : _armorCE = 215; _armorKE = 215; 
"M1A2_TUSK_MG" : _armorCE = 1035; _armorKE = 720;
"M1A1" : _armorCE = 1035; _armorKE = 720; 
"ZSU_Base", "ZSU_TK_EP1" : _armorCE = 9.5; _armorKE = 9.5; 
"2S6M_Tunguska" : _armorCE = 15; _armorKE = 15; 
"T34" : _armorCE = 85; _armorKE = 75;
"T72_Base" : _armorCE = 490; _armorKE = 390;
"T90" : _armorCE = 1165; _armorKE = 815;
"AAV" : _armorCE = 27.5; _armorKE = 27.5; 
"BMP2_Base" : _armorCE = 36.5; _armorKE = 36.5; 
"M2A2_EP1", "M6_EP1" : _armorCE = 130; _armorKE = 130; 
"M2A3_EP1" : _armorCE = 170; _armorKE = 130;
"BAF_FV510_D", "BAF_FV510_W" : _armorCE = 165; _armorKE = 115;
"BMP3" : _armorCE = 41.5; _armorKE = 41.5; 
"BRDM2_Base", "BRDM2_ATGM_base" : _armorCE = 10.5; _armorKE = 10.5;
"BTR90_Base" : _armorCE = 34; _armorKE = 34; 
"BTR40_MG_TK_INS_EP1", "BTR40_MG_TK_GUE_EP1", "BTR40_TK_GUE_EP1", "BTR40_TK_INS_EP1" : _armorCE = 12; _armorKE = 12; 
"BTR60_TK_EP1" : _armorCE = 9; _armorKE = 9; 
"M113_UN_EP1", "M113_TK_EP1" : _armorCE = 38; _armorKE = 38;
"LAV25_Base" : _armorCE = 32.5; _armorKE = 32.5;
"M1128_MGS_EP1" : _armorCE = 20; _armorKE = 20; 
"M1130_CV_EP1", "M1135_ATGMV_EP1", "M1129_MC_EP1", "M1126_ICV_mk19_EP1", "M1126_ICV_M2_EP1" : _armorCE = 600; _armorKE = 20; 
"MLRS", "MLRS_DES_EP1" : _armorCE = 17.5; _armorKE = 17.5; 
"GAZ_Vodnik" : _armorCE = 10.5; _armorKE = 10.5;
"GAZ_Vodnik_HMG" : _armorCE = 10.5; _armorKE = 10.5; 

Penetration (minimal + random). Kinetic - should be counted KE armor, distance affects penetration; chemical - CE armor counted; explosive - KE armor counted, distance of attacker doesn't matter:

"120mmHE_M120" : _penetration = 40 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"Sh_100_HEAT" : _penetration = 350 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"Sh_100_HE" : _penetration = 70 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"Sh_105_APDS" : _penetration = 270 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_105_HESH" : _penetration = 175 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"Sh_105_HE", "ARTY_Sh_105_HE" : _penetration = 62.5 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
"Sh_120_HE" : _penetration = 567.5 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
"Sh_120_SABOT" : _penetration = 805 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_122_HE", "ARTY_Sh_122_HE" : _penetration = 30 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
"Sh_125_HE" : _penetration = 81.5 + (random 50); _explosive = true;
"Sh_125_SABOT" ("D81") :_penetration = 515 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_125_SABOT" ("2A46M") : _penetration = 625 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_85_HE" : _penetration = 35 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"Sh_85_AP" :_penetration = 82.5 + (random 25); _kinetic = true;
"ARTY_Sh_81_HE", "Sh_81_HE" : _penetration = 40 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"ARTY_Sh_82_HE", "Sh_82_HE" : _penetration = 40 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"ARTY_R_120mm_HE" : _penetration = 20 + (random 100); _explosive = true;
"ARTY_R_227mm_HE" : _penetration = 550 + (random 100); _explosive = true;

"R_MEEWS_HEAT" : _penetration = 400 + (random 100); _chemical = true;
"R_MEEWS_HEDP" : _penetration = 125 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"ARTY_SADARM_PROJO" : _penetration = 110 + (random 25);_explosive = true;
"R_Hydra_HE" : _penetration = 15 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"R_57mm_HE" : _penetration = 5 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"R_80mm_HE" : _penetration = 25 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"R_S8T_AT" : _penetration = 405 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_M136_AT" : _penetration = 395 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_RPG18_AT" : _penetration = 350 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_PG7VR_AT" : _penetration = 625 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_PG7VL_AT" : _penetration = 475 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_PG7V_AT" : _penetration = 305 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_OG7_AT" : _penetration = 5 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"R_PG9_AT" : _penetration = 275 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_OG9_HE" : _penetration = 19 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"R_SMAW_HEAA" : _penetration = 505 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"R_SMAW_HEDP" :_penetration = 55 + (random 10); _chemical = true;
"R_GRAD" : _penetration = 20 + (random 100); _explosive = true;
"R_MLRS" : _penetration = 550 + (random 100); _explosive = true;

"M_CRV7_AT" : _penetration = 350 + (random 50); _explosive = true;
"M_47_AT_EP1" : _penetration = 400 + (random 100); _chemical = true;
"M_Javelin_AT" : _penetration = 775 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_Stinger_AA" : _penetration = 25 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"M_Sidewinder_AA" : _penetration = 85 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"M_Strela_AA" : _penetration = 15 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"M_Igla_AA" : _penetration = 20 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"M_AT5_AT" : _penetration = 625 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_AT13_AT" :_penetration = 925 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_TOW_AT" : _penetration = 775 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_TOW2_AT" : _penetration = 950 + (random 100); _chemical = true;
"M_AT10_AT" : _penetration = 625 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_AT11_AT" :_penetration = 875 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_Hellfire_AT" :_penetration = 1350 + (random 100); _chemical = true;
"M_Vikhr_AT" :_penetration = 950 + (random 100); _chemical = true;
"M_Maverick_AT" :_penetration = 1750 + (random 100); _chemical = true;
"M_R73_AA" :_penetration = 85 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"M_Ch29_AT" :_penetration = 4150 + (random 100); _explosive = true;
"M_AT2_AT" :_penetration = 450 + (random 100); _chemical = true;
"M_AT6_AT" :_penetration = 535 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_AT9_AT" :_penetration = 895 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"M_9M311_AA" :_penetration = 137.5 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
"M_NLAW_AT" :_penetration = 450 + (random 100); _chemical = true;

"Bo_Mk82", "Bo_GBU12_LGB" : _penetration = 2950 + (random 100); _explosive = true;
"Bo_FAB_250" : _penetration = 3350 + (random 100); _explosive = true;

"Mine" : _penetration = 687.5 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
"MineE" : _penetration = 245 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"PipeBomb","TimeBomb","BAF_ied_v1","BAF_ied_v2","BAF_ied_v3","BAF_ied_v4" : _penetration = 50 + (random 250); _explosive = true;

"Sh_40_SABOT" : _penetration = 125 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_40_HE" :_penetration = 10 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"B_145x115_AP" : _penetration = 15 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_20mm_AP" : _penetration = 20 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_20mm_AA" : _penetration = 20 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_23mm_AA" : _penetration = 24 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_23mm_HE" : _penetration = 12 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_23mm_AP" : _penetration = 24 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_23mm_APHE" : _penetration = 18 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_25mm_HE" : _penetration = 13 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_25mm_HEI" : _penetration = 13 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_25mm_APDS" : _penetration = 23 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_30x113mm_M789_HEDP" : _penetration = 50 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_30mm_AP" : _penetration = 25 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_30mmA10_AP" : _penetration = 64 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_30mm_HE" : _penetration = 16 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"B_30mm_AA" : _penetration = 16 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"G_30mm_HE" : _penetration = 5 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;
"G_40mm_HE" : _penetration = 6 + (random 10); _kinetic = true;

Vehicle is considered as invulnerable on other kinds of "BulletCore" ammunition except tracks and wheels if damage is big enough - lowest fully counted caliber is 14.5 mm. This can be changed, but has a reason. The more hits calculated, the bigger CPU load, especially for rapid-fire weaponry (eg .50 CKM can be deadly here also for CPU, I suppose).

Edited December 14, 2012 by Rydygier

[Damian90 696]

"T55_TK_EP1", "T55_TK_GUE_EP1" : _armorCE = 215; _armorKE = 215; 
[u]"M1A2_TUSK_MG" : _armorCE = 1035; _armorKE = 720;
"M1A1" : _armorCE = 1035; _armorKE = 720; [/u]
"ZSU_Base", "ZSU_TK_EP1" : _armorCE = 9.5; _armorKE = 9.5; 
"2S6M_Tunguska" : _armorCE = 15; _armorKE = 15; 
"T34" : _armorCE = 85; _armorKE = 75;
"T72_Base" : _armorCE = 490; _armorKE = 390;
[u]"T90" : _armorCE = 1165; _armorKE = 815;[/u]
"AAV" : _armorCE = 27.5; _armorKE = 27.5; 
"BMP2_Base" : _armorCE = 36.5; _armorKE = 36.5; 
"M2A2_EP1", "M6_EP1" : _armorCE = 130; _armorKE = 130; 
"M2A3_EP1" : _armorCE = 170; _armorKE = 130;
"BAF_FV510_D", "BAF_FV510_W" : _armorCE = 165; _armorKE = 115;
"BMP3" : _armorCE = 41.5; _armorKE = 41.5; 
"BRDM2_Base", "BRDM2_ATGM_base" : _armorCE = 10.5; _armorKE = 10.5;
"BTR90_Base" : _armorCE = 34; _armorKE = 34; 
"BTR40_MG_TK_INS_EP1", "BTR40_MG_TK_GUE_EP1", "BTR40_TK_GUE_EP1", "BTR40_TK_INS_EP1" : _armorCE = 12; _armorKE = 12; 
"BTR60_TK_EP1" : _armorCE = 9; _armorKE = 9; 
"M113_UN_EP1", "M113_TK_EP1" : _armorCE = 38; _armorKE = 38;
"LAV25_Base" : _armorCE = 32.5; _armorKE = 32.5;
"M1128_MGS_EP1" : _armorCE = 20; _armorKE = 20; 
"M1130_CV_EP1", "M1135_ATGMV_EP1", "M1129_MC_EP1", "M1126_ICV_mk19_EP1", "M1126_ICV_M2_EP1" : _armorCE = 600; _armorKE = 20; 
"MLRS", "MLRS_DES_EP1" : _armorCE = 17.5; _armorKE = 17.5; 
"GAZ_Vodnik" : _armorCE = 10.5; _armorKE = 10.5;
"GAZ_Vodnik_HMG" : _armorCE = 10.5; _armorKE = 10.5;

T-90 have too much armor. We should remember that T-90 represented in ArmA2 is a basic T-90 which in reality is just T-72B on steroids. What it means? It is just the same protection level as for example T-72B Model 1990 with 4S22 Kontakt-5 ERA. So T-90 is overarmored. While M1 series seems to be underarmored.

As basic vehicles in ArmA2 represents XXI century period, the American tanks use 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. This is a very complex armor package, from what I could dig out and after discussions with guys that are close to the armor buisness, we can approx made a model of this armor package. The outer shell of the tank is probably made from the high hardness steel or eventually from double or even triple hardness steel. However I do not remember how much more protection they gave for HHS, DHS or THS compared to RHA. The internal structure of the armor is a NERA (Non Energetic Reactive Armor) like array with a depleted uranium alloy plates, encased in something called a graphite coat, I was researching this, and it seems that a name is misleading because basic graphite have no visible advantages for armor protection. I concluded that graphite coating have something to do with carbon fiber, that indeed is used for composite structures, because more advanced cabron based materials are still probably not used in armor protection, I did not considered them.

Such DUA and Carbon Fiber are then encased inbetween steel plates, the most logical would be to encase them in HHS, DHS or THS steel plates to combine their high hardness, with properties of Carbon Fiber and high density of DUA. Uknown is only how many such layers are inside armor cavity, and how thick is each layer.

The backplate for such array should be a RHA or SHS plate, most probably ~100mm thick (as some reports says), it can't be too hard to not spall in case of armor perforation, but it needs to be more flexible.

However do not ask me about estimation, but the M1A1 and M1A2 should have significantly better protection, against both KE and CE threats.

As for T-90, because it's turret is exactly the same as T-72B turret, the general conclusion is that the armor configuration is same which means it looks like this:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/968/t72bbazakolorki.jpg (148 kB)

The turret base structure is cast not rolled like in case of M1 series. What it means? It is important to know that Soviet sources says that cast armor is by 5% to 15% weaker than it's rolled analog, so the outer layer and inner layer (backplate) is by 5% to 15% weaker. The array we see inside is a simple NERA like armor. I know that a Russian sources close to the UKBTM (design bureau that designed T-72 and T-90) and UVZ (a company that manufactures them), claimed that also most modern variant used by Russian Military the T-90A, use very similiar armor array, only that cast turret was replaced by welded turret from rolled plates.

The 4S22 Kontakt-5 ERA also do not add as much protection as most often claimed. It is immposible to properly calculate in RHAe how much protection it adds, also it is not efficent against modern APFSDS ammunition like American M829A2 (Russian language sources claimed that Kontakt-5 will be ineffective against M829A2 even at range of 6,000m, which is a bit odd, but then again, these are still Russian language sources), M829A3, M829E4/A4 or German ammunition like DM53 and DM63. As well it is not efficent against tandem HEAT warheads.

So considering this, I recommend to weaken T-90 by 5% to 15% (best would be something inbetween) due to it's cast turret and much simpler armor array, compared to M1 series, which should be stronger by these 5% to 15%.

If we also consider the image I postem made by my friend, and we know that T-90 will have exactly the same level of protection, we can then assume that T-90 with Kontakt-5 will have such protection values:

Vs APFSDS - ~470-540mm + Kontakt-5 (~250mm) = ~670-740mm RHAe vs KE.

Vs HEAT - ~530-600mm + Kontakt-5 (~600mm) = ~1,130-1,200mm RHAe vs CE.

Above estimation is for turret front of course, for front hull will be lower.

And please remember, this conclusions are made after several years of my own research in this subject.

"120mmHE_M120" : _penetration = 40 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"Sh_100_HEAT" : _penetration = 350 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"Sh_100_HE" : _penetration = 70 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"Sh_105_APDS" : _penetration = 270 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_105_HESH" : _penetration = 175 + (random 50); _chemical = true;
"Sh_105_HE", "ARTY_Sh_105_HE" : _penetration = 62.5 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
[u]"Sh_120_HE" : _penetration = 567.5 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
"Sh_120_SABOT" : _penetration = 805 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;[/u]
"Sh_122_HE", "ARTY_Sh_122_HE" : _penetration = 30 + (random 25); _explosive = true;
"Sh_125_HE" : _penetration = 81.5 + (random 50); _explosive = true;
"Sh_125_SABOT" ("D81") :_penetration = 515 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_125_SABOT" ("2A46M") : _penetration = 625 + (random 50); _kinetic = true;
"Sh_85_HE" : _penetration = 35 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"Sh_85_AP" :_penetration = 82.5 + (random 25); _kinetic = true;
"ARTY_Sh_81_HE", "Sh_81_HE" : _penetration = 40 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"ARTY_Sh_82_HE", "Sh_82_HE" : _penetration = 40 + (random 10); _explosive = true;
"ARTY_R_120mm_HE" : _penetration = 20 + (random 100); _explosive = true;
"ARTY_R_227mm_HE" : _penetration = 550 + (random 100); _explosive = true;[/Code]

The problem is that there are no real life ammunition designation codes, which means we need to assume about what ammunition we are talking about.

The "Sh_120_HE" might be anything, if we assume that it is M830 HEAT, then it's penetration values should be ~600-650mm, my Friend had some access to German documents, and the same value is provided for DM12 HEAT, both rounds are actually one and the same because M830 is just American version of DM12.

If this is M830A1 MPAT then if I remember correct it's penetration values should be ~400-450mm.

The M908 HEOR which is a variant of M830A1 for HE round role should have lower performance, but I do not think that round in A2 is a M908.

The other rounds used by US Military like M1028 Cannister, MPHE (DM11) or AMP (still in R&D phase) are not simulated in basic A2 (M1028 only in ACE2 AFAIK).

The Sh_120_SABOT is probably M829A3, so the values in your config seems legit.

The same problem will be with M1128 MGS, I will try to dig it up a bit. Although IRCC, the most popular ammunition used by this vehicle would be M900 APFSDS, M456 HEAT and M393 HEP.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Damian90

[Rydygier 1302]

Several years? Wow. Personally never even tried to do such deep and extended research. Found no reason, I guess. Anyway - great & thanks. So let's say T-90's armor goes 10% down, M1's 10% up...

"Sh_120_HE" - so HEAT perhaps? Penetration should be higher, as I see, and "chemical" not "explosive"...

Edited December 14, 2012 by Rydygier

[Damian90 696]

Several years? Wow. Personally never even tried to do such deep and extended research. Found no reason, I guess.

Well, if you want to be a proffesional military journalist and write even some books, you need to sacrifice several years for deep research. I started to be interested in the subject when I had 10 or 15, now I have 22, so this is 7-12 years of education in this subject.

"Sh_120_HE" - so HEAT perhaps? Penetration should be higher, as I see, and "chemical" not "explosive"...

Yeah, most probably M830 HEAT.

Oh BTW.

Sh_125_HE is a bit tricky thing here. Because we do not know if this is HEAT round or HE/HEF round.

In Russian tanks the combat load of ammunition is mostly more HE/HEF and HEAT instead of APFSDS. The basic ArmA2 gives just only two types of ammunition, which is not correct.

In such case more logical is HEAT round, as it is more multipurpose than HE/HEF. The most popular HEAT rounds in Russia are 3BK18 with 630mm RHA penetration, 3BK21 with 760mm and 3BK29 with 630mm RHA penetration.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Damian90

[Rydygier 1302]

And chemical means explosive in world of ammunition, because explosion is chemical reaction.

That's clear. I just found relevant variables named that way when I started work with this great addon, sadly left alone, and not changed it, as their name isn't so important as long, as code gives fine results.

So, thank you for very valuable help again, and here is most recent version (untested yet) including 3BK21 instead of HE for 125mm:

NBT_TDS 2.06a

Edited December 14, 2012 by Rydygier